I'm a libertarian lawyer and college professor. I blog on religion, history, constitutional law, government policy, philosophy, sexuality, and the American Founding. Everything is fair game though. Over the years, I've been involved in numerous group blogs that come and go. This blog archives almost everything I write.
Email your questions or comments to rowjonathan@aol.com

Tuesday, April 12, 2016

Drs. Noam Chomsky, Eric Nelson, and ...

Me Trying Better to Understand the "Economic Egalitarianism" of
the European Hebraic republicans and tensions within the synthesis of
American originalism.

We live in a world where we must define terms to understand reality. All
terms are socially constructed. But where I differ from the followers
of Michel Foucault (et al.) is, I believe in ultimate underlying
objective reality. They would argue there is no such thing, that
everything is a social construct imposed by power. I, conversely,
believe such socially constructed terms are useful and better when they
more accurately “get at” the objective reality that lies underneath.

Dr.
Noam Chomsky, brilliant, who has done groundbreaking work in the field
of (appropriately enough for the introduction to this post) linguistics,
is, as far as I can tell, a "democratic-socialist." He
believes in democracy and civil rights, but not capitalism and markets.
But, interestingly enough, he doesn’t call himself a
“democratic-socialist.” I call him that because that’s what he appears
to me to be. Rather, he calls himself an “anarcho-syndicalist.” Alas,
such term has not stuck.

I don't agree with Chomsky's
ideal vision of "geopolitics." When he engages the issue, though not a
lawyer, he notoriously uses his brilliant mind to selectively focus on
certain details supporting his narrative while ignoring everything else.
That is, he's great at making law office arguments.

But I do read his work, because I learn much from him. For instance, whileexploring Dr. Eric Nelson's groundbreaking work on the European Hebraic republicans and pondering how they "fit" in Dr. Bernard Bailyn's paradigm of originalism
(that certain key influential ideological forces were in tension with
one another, but ultimately presented as harmonized by American Whigs) I
concluded that Chomsky had already anticipated my understanding of Dr.
Nelson's thesis.

I remember reading something from
Chomsky where he applauded the economic ideals of among others, Thomas
Jefferson, while harshly criticizing those of James Madison.

Like
notable scholars of the Anglo-European tradition of "republicanism"
have concluded, such tradition argued for what might be termed "economic
egalitarianism." They were economic wealth limiters and redistributors.
This relates chiefly to the republicans' support for agrarian laws.
Jefferson among many others supported such. So too did the Ancient
Greeks. But not the Ancient Romans.

This is what Dr. Nelson argues. As he wrote:

It is a measure of [James] Harrington’s remarkable influence that, from 1660
onwards, agrarian laws would remain permanently at the center of
republican political thought. Writers from Montesquieu to Rousseau, and
from Jefferson to Tocqueville, would regard it as axiomatic that
republics ought to legislate limits on private ownership in order to
realize a particular vision of civic life.

Harrington, author of Oceana,
a key figure of the British Whig opposition "republicans," argued the
Ancient Hebrews 1. had a "republic," 2. with wealth leveling economic
principles that constituted the earliest agrarian laws. Therefore, all
republics ought to adopt agrarian laws where
"the state should coercively maintain an egalitarian distribution of
property[.]" Harrington relied on the scholarship of earlier European
contemporaries from among other places the Netherlands and Italy who
initiated this understanding. This is why I refer to these figures as
"European Hebraic republicans" as opposed to strictly identifying Great
Britain.

Why
was Madison, according to Chomsky, the chief villain? He rejected
agrarian laws as policy for America and his vision prevailed over the
many others, part of America's Founding ideological stew, who hoped for
such. This was a victory of (classical) "liberalism" over
"republicanism."

But, as alluded to, both liberalism
and republicanism were part of the ideological stew. In addition to
Jefferson, Chomsky enlists Adam Smith and Aristotle -- both certainly
important to America's Founding vision -- as economic egalitarians
(contra Madison).

I don't know enough detail on Smith's writings to see why Chomsky would place him with the republican levelers. Likewise, Nelson notes
that whereas Cicero argued for "property rights" along the lines of
what present day supporters of laissez faire might endorse, the Ancient
Greeks supported agrarian laws, and consequently, economic
egalitarianism. Though, Nelson turns to among others Plutarch and Plato,
not Aristotle to support his thesis.

So, Nelson asserts
Harrington argued a thesis that was both biblical and Platoic in order
to support agrarian economic egalitarianism. (Later economic
egalitarians like Rousseau may have focused more on the philosophical,
i.e., Platonic elements, than the biblical ones, though Rousseau still
claimed to be a "Christian.")

Next, let's explore
what "economic egalitarianism" means. In previous posts, I used the
terms "proto-Marxist" and "proto-Rawlsian" attempting to describe such.
Presently, hyperbole dominates contemporary political discourse. For
free market purists, there is a tendency to categorize someone to one's
economic left as a "socialist." For instance, Ludwig von Mises purportedly termed among others Milton Friedman (the eyewitness to this account) and Frederic Hayek
"socialists" because they were willing to put up with slightly more statism than he was.

Likewise,
if "Marxism" is understood necessarily to include the
abolition of private property, the European Hebraic
republicans cannot properly be termed "proto-Marxist." Others, however,
have a "looser" understanding for "Marxism." But I named Rawls in my
attempt to understand this era's "economic egalitarianism" as an
alternative.

Nelson briefly mentions Rawls but doesn't explore deeper because,
though an "economic egalitarian," Rawls' ideal of justice accepts,
in principle, the possible existence of a degree of economic
inequality the European Hebraic republicans would not. As Nelson notes:

Even
John Rawls, however strongly he might reject the perspective of his
more libertarian critics, nonetheless insists that inequality per se is
not inconsistent with the principles of justice. On his view, as long as
the position of the least well-off social group is improved under a
particular economic arrangement, it does not matter that the arrangement
in question might improve the situation of the most fortunate to a
greater degree. The only relevant question is whether some rival scheme
might be envisioned that would make the least advantaged even better
off; if so, the latter would be preferred even if it would result in
greater inequality.

Below I focus on what I see as Nelson's clearest attempt to describe the economic vision of his Hebraic republicans:

European political theory had been dominated by the unequal contest
between two views of property: one which saw the protection of private
property as the central obligation of the state, and another which saw
the abolition of private property as the ultimate salvation of mankind.
Cunaeus’s innocuous semantic move in 1617 had opened up a “third way”—one which remains central to modern political thought and practice.
Republican political theory would now embrace neither the protection
nor the abolition of private property, but rather its redistribution.
The coercive power of the state would be used to impose limits on
private wealth, and to generate a roughly egalitarian diffusion of
property throughout the commonwealth.

The bold is mine. So this isn't "pure" Marxism which would seek
to abolish private property. Neither is it laissez faire capitalism
which sees state protection of private property as central. The "third
way" is a term and policy Tony Blair and Bill Clinton established and
supported, the kind of
capitalism that dominates geopolitics post 11/09/89. The kind of
capitalism that "Ended History" according to Francis Fukuyama.

Indeed, as the Amazon page to Nelson's book describes:

Nelson demonstrates that central features of modern political thought emerged from an attempt to emulate a constitution designed by God.

Again the bold is mine.

What
I conclude from this study is that whereas the "liberal" view of
economics, something closer to laissez faire capitalism, prevailed
during the American Founding (i.e., Madison's vision) today's modified
form of capitalism that engages in more economic redistribution arguably can be traced to the vision of these European Hebraic
republicans like
James Harrington and figures from or related to the American Founding
who supported agrarian laws.